Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:11:51 +0100
From: Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk>
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: HEAD and releases
Message-ID: <20030416191151.GB30157@manyfish.co.uk>
Mail-Followup-To: dev@apr.apache.org
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030415171425.02099ec8@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
 <20030415215859.GA2208@manyfish.co.uk>
 <5.2.0.9.2.20030415171425.02099ec8@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
 <5.2.0.9.2.20030415212716.01229bf8@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030415212716.01229bf8@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 09:31:04PM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
> A few developers keep suggesting "we need to break things"
> 
> Nobody has ever provided a compelling example since the polls API change.
> And stubbing old functions certainly shouldn't be "getting in the way" of
> further progress twords a stable 1.0, should it?  Or better asked, is it?
> Would you provide an example of a change that must occur?

I tried to fix apr_generate_random_bytes() to use size_t already.  I'd
also like to reorder struct apr_sockaddr_t to make it binary compatible
across !APR_HAVE_IPV6 and APR_HAVE_IPV6, which requires breaking binary
compatibility with 0.9.2.

joe